Thought on Topaz Photo AI vs. DxO Photolab (1 Viewer)

[Oregon John]

I want something to purchase outright rather than subscription, primarily for noise reduction though other post-processing tools would be useful.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I'd also consider ON1 if I were you. I tried free trails of it and Topaz. It was really tough to say which was best but I thought ON-1 by a fine margin and it was also slightly cheaper.

 

[edenwatcher]

I use DxO PhotoLab for everything as I didn't want to go down the subscription route. Works very well.

Rob

 

[mike nesbitt]

I want something to purchase outright rather than subscription, primarily for noise reduction though other post-processing tools would be useful.

I primarily use DXO Photolab 7. It cost me £150 to buy on a Black Friday deal. The noise reduction module is truly class leading, as is the lens sharpening. You can also buy DXO Pure Raw which is a raw convertor, it contains both of those modules and costs considerably less but PL7 is an end to end editor. It works out at roughly the cost of a cup of coffee per week over a year and it's truly excellent.
I also have Photoshop, Lightroom (subscription) and Topaz AI but DXO is my default go - to and better than any of the others in my opinion.

 

[Mark Jarrett]

I primarily use DXO Photolab 7. It cost me £150 to buy on a Black Friday deal. The noise reduction module is truly class leading, as is the lens sharpening. You can also buy DXO Pure Raw which is a raw convertor, it contains both of those modules and costs considerably less but PL7 is an end to end editor. It works out at roughly the cost of a cup of coffee per week over a year and it's truly excellent.
I also have Photoshop, Lightroom (subscription) and Topaz AI but DXO is my default go - to and better than any of the others in my opinion.

Hi Mike. I’ve been contemplating buying software like Photoshop or Lightroom for some time but never got round to it. I don’t particularly want a monthly subscription, rather I would prefer a one-off purchase.

I have always been happy enough with what Apple/Mac/iPad provides but, on occasions, I feel like I need a bit more.

Does DXO Photolab allow you to remove shadows from a specific area, as well as the usual stuff like altering brightness, sharpening etc? As an example, do you think it could vastly improve the attached Red-throated Diver photo, which was shot looking into sunlight. The shadowing around the bill, head and neck is letting the photo down and would benefit (obviously 😆) from being removed. My only real concern would be reducing noise but you’ve covered that.

Thanks, Mark.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I HATE subscription software. So I stayed with LR6 (last version you could buy outright) for many years. Recently I decided to just buy into Adobe plan - basically $10/mo. It bugs me for some reason (being held hostage by adobe?) but in fact the $10 is trivial compared to other monthly expenses and the updates are killer. I spend a lot of time doing post with images, culling, etc. and the tools have come a loooooong way. I very seldom use PS but do 97% of my 'darkroom' edits in LR. I can't imagine going back..
I feel like i've sold-my-soul-to-the-devil for promoting it, but there it is

 

[MiddleRiver]

@Mark Jarrett
Not sure if this is better but it's prob what I would do. Backlit pics are hard...
It was very qiuck-and-dirty, so beak highlights are sloppy. Also DOF transition could have been done more gradually.

 

[mike nesbitt]

Hi Mike. I’ve been contemplating buying software like Photoshop or Lightroom for some time but never got round to it. I don’t particularly want a monthly subscription, rather I would prefer a one-off purchase.

I have always been happy enough with what Apple/Mac/iPad provides but, on occasions, I feel like I need a bit more.

Does DXO Photolab allow you to remove shadows from a specific area, as well as the usual stuff like altering brightness, sharpening etc? As an example, do you think it could vastly improve the attached Red-throated Diver photo, which was shot looking into sunlight. The shadowing around the bill, head and neck is letting the photo down and would benefit (obviously 😆) from being removed. My only real concern would be reducing noise but you’ve covered that.

Thanks, Mark.

Hi Mark.

I'm assuming that you still shoot JPEG.

I think your first decision should be do I want to change to shooting RAW? There's not really a whole lot of mileage in buying or subscribing to extensive editing software if if you're not keen on making the move to RAW.

Providing you get the image in focus and exposed well, the camera will generally give you an ok / decent jpeg.
If you're pleased with that output it's happy days, but if you're not then you've actually already lost a lot of latitude to make changes because the camera has already binned perhaps 90% of the image data and some of the remaining like white balance can't be altered either.

You can work on specific areas with DXO but for the shadows highlight and any gardening etc, I prefer to carry out in PS, not necessarily because it's better, it's just my workflow.

FWIW and it's just my take on things, other peoples mileage may vary - I would have left your diver shot as it was. There's plenty to see in the shadow areas, I don't really subscribe to the popular idea that an image has to "pop" and have overly exaggerated vibrant colour, for me it just needs to be a reasonable representation of what you saw.

Mike.

 

[Mark Jarrett]

Hi Mark.

I'm assuming that you still shoot JPEG.

I think your first decision should be do I want to change to shooting RAW? There's not really a whole lot of mileage in buying or subscribing to extensive editing software if if you're not keen on making the move to RAW.

Providing you get the image in focus and exposed well, the camera will generally give you an ok / decent jpeg.
If you're pleased with that output it's happy days, but if you're not then you've actually already lost a lot of latitude to make changes because the camera has already binned perhaps 90% of the image data and some of the remaining like white balance can't be altered either.

You can work on specific areas with DXO but for the shadows highlight and any gardening etc, I prefer to carry out in PS, not necessarily because it's better, it's just my workflow.

FWIW and it's just my take on things, other peoples mileage may vary - I would have left your diver shot as it was. There's plenty to see in the shadow areas, I don't really subscribe to the popular idea that an image has to "pop" and have overly exaggerated vibrant colour, for me it just needs to be a reasonable representation of what you saw.

Mike.

Thanks very much Mike. Yes, I do shoot in jpeg. I’ll take your comments on board and give the matter more thought. There aren’t many times I’ve wanted to drastically alter a photograph but the above RTD was one! The whole set of the dozen or so photos I kept (of it) were all in deep shadow with the river being too bright. Thanks again.

 

[Mark Jarrett]

@Mark Jarrett
Not sure if this is better but it's prob what I would do. Backlit pics are hard...
It was very qiuck-and-dirty, so beak highlights are sloppy. Also DOF transition could have been done more gradually.

View attachment 1550091T

Thanks very much MiddleRiver. That’s very good. The shadows have been slightly removed, the bill is marginally sharper but the main thing, for me, is that the eye stands out considerably.

I have tried to save the new image to my photos but it won’t let me.

Mark

 

[MiddleRiver]

Thanks very much MiddleRiver. That’s very good. The shadows have been slightly removed, the bill is marginally sharper but the main thing, for me, is that the eye stands out considerably.

I have tried to save the new image to my photos but it won’t let me.

Mark

One caveat: I tend to be very modest in my edits simply because I know from experience that it's very easy to change appearance of bird, and at the end of the day, I care more about 'scientific' accuracy, than 'aesthetics'. I often struggle with dark eye areas but if that's the way they are in nature, then so be it. I also detest over-sharpened or images with the saturation ramped up artificially.
What I'm def fine with, is things like blurring distant background a little (pseudo DOF exaggeration), which I though makes the bird pop out a little more.
Not sure why you can't download it... I'll see if I can PM it or send me an email and I'll kick it on...
a

 

[jafritten]

Hi Mike. I’ve been contemplating buying software like Photoshop or Lightroom for some time but never got round to it. I don’t particularly want a monthly subscription, rather I would prefer a one-off purchase.

I have always been happy enough with what Apple/Mac/iPad provides but, on occasions, I feel like I need a bit more.

Does DXO Photolab allow you to remove shadows from a specific area, as well as the usual stuff like altering brightness, sharpening etc? As an example, do you think it could vastly improve the attached Red-throated Diver photo, which was shot looking into sunlight. The shadowing around the bill, head and neck is letting the photo down and would benefit (obviously 😆) from being removed. My only real concern would be reducing noise but you’ve covered that.

Thanks, Mark.

Hi Mark, I have used DXO for many years. I am using Photolab 5 I think, the first version that has Deep Prime noise reduction anyway. It works amazingly well with RAW files. I don't use it very often though because the difference between Prime and Deep Prime only shows when you shoot in the darkest of environments like candle lit rooms. A RAW development of a 40 MB files takes about 7 minutes or so. That's one downside. What I like about PL is that it is possible to edit a RAW file with a few clicks.

As for your photo, lighting up the shadows a bit is very easy using Photolab.

I checked out newer PL versions but I didn't think upgrading was worth the extra money. Maybe you can get an earlier version a bit cheaper. I would make sure, though, that it has Deep Prime. I have re-edited a few older photos with it and I am pleased with the results.

I got my version as a one-off purchase for some 120 € about 3 years ago.

Hope that helps.

You should definitely shoot RAW.

I like your short-eared owl by the way.

 

[Mark Jarrett]

Hi Mark, I have used DXO for many years. I am using Photolab 5 I think, the first version that has Deep Prime noise reduction anyway. It works amazingly well with RAW files. I don't use it very often though because the difference between Prime and Deep Prime only shows when you shoot in the darkest of environments like candle lit rooms. A RAW development of a 40 MB files takes about 7 minutes or so. That's one downside. What I like about PL is that it is possible to edit a RAW file with a few clicks.

As for your photo, lighting up the shadows a bit is very easy using Photolab.

I checked out newer PL versions but I didn't think upgrading was worth the extra money. Maybe you can get an earlier version a bit cheaper. I would make sure, though, that it has Deep Prime. I have re-edited a few older photos with it and I am pleased with the results.

I got my version as a one-off purchase for some 120 € about 3 years ago.

Hope that helps.

You should definitely shoot RAW.

I like your short-eared owl by the way.

Thanks for the info jafritten!

 

[Brad Hacker]

Anyone else having problems with DXO PureRaw4 and the DeepPrime XD processing? I never had problems with PureRaw2 or PureRaw3 and was very happy with the results. With PureRaw4 I'm using the same computer (Thinkpad with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti with Max-Q graphics processor and Windows10) and same camera (R5). When PureRaw4 first came out, I would get "a processing error occurred" for some files, but discovered I could reboot the computer or ask it to process only one file at a time, and then it would usually work. DXO notes on their website "a processing error occurred" might indicate a graphics processor not up to snuff, but the behavior of the program--especially failing when it has more than one file to do or if the computer isn't rebooted--suggests memory-management problems, rather than graphics processor inadequacy to me. Disappointing to say the least.